The Source and Significance of the Fourth "Oratio contra Arianos" Attributed to Athanasius

Author(s): R. P. C. Hanson
Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Sep., 1988), pp. 257-266
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1584120 .
Accessed: 27/05/2013 05:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Mon, 27 May 2013 05:26:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988), 257-266, E. J. Brill, Leiden

THE SOURCE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FOURTH

ORATIO CONTRA ARIANOS ATTRIBUTED TO ATHANASIUS
BY

R. P. C. HANSON

That the fourth of the Orations against the Arians attributed to

Athanasius cannot be from his hand has long been recognised. There is
not a single quotation of it in the writings of Fathers or acts of synods.
The manuscript evidence for it is not as full as for the other three Orations. Severus of Antioch (465-538) in his references to the Orations implies three discourses and three only (though the third is called by
different names) and he does not know of a fourth. The text of Orat.
IV (as it shall henceforth be called) is more learned and better acquainted with philosophy than one would expect of a work by
Athanasius, and the style is different from his. The work is not a
deliberately planned treatise in its form, like the first three, though it
is not a mere collection of notes. It is a plain setting out without introduction of the arguments against a short list of heresies, Arianism, and
two forms of Sabellianism, one taught by a group of people unnamed
and the other, dealt with in the last seven chapters only, spread by people called the followers of Paul of Samosata. Orat. IV has no gene
about using hypostasis in Trinitarian contexts, a practice unknown in
the first three Orations. It uses homoousios twice, whereas there is only
one occurrence of the word in the first three. The first three use toLtoI
Tx) 7ioptp ('like the Father') frequently, the fourth never.'
External evidence, therefore, is useless for determining the date and
provenance of Orat. IV. There is however plenty of internal evidence
which should make it possible to fix the date at least within approximate
limits. But this evidence has to be analysed carefully so as to fit the
document satisfactorily into the history of the Arian Controversy. We
must first note that the treatise contains some language which is very
like the kind of theological language used by Athanasius. The Son is one
with the Father, the author says 'because he is the Son of the substance
of the Father by nature, and is his own Logos'.2 God, he says, 'has the

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Mon, 27 May 2013 05:26:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

258

R. P. C. HANSON

Logos as a progeny according to the nature of his own substance'.3 The

Son is in the Father by nature, whereas created beings cleave to him externally (5). Against the Arian practice of pointing to the weaknesses
and imperfections of Jesus Christ, the author argues that these apply
which he assumed and bore and exonly to his human nature (avOpcoqo~)
alted for our sakes, and he offered our human experiences to God,
mediating for us, so that they might be abolished in him.4 But the Logos
did not change nor was he first humbled and then exalted (7). This is
doctrine exactly like that of Athanasius and expressed in the kind of
language which he used in the first three Orations. It is hard to avoid
the conclusion that the author knew of these.
The author attacks Arianism occasionally, though the main burden
of the treatise is not directed against Arianism, and the Arianism which
he attacks is not that of the later Neo-Arians, Aetius and Eunomius, of
which he appears to be ignorant. He rejects the view that the Father
made the Son and then named him (3), and the concept of a Christ who
is not truly Logos and is created (4). He describes people who hold these
views as 'the party of Eusebius' and as 'Arian lunatics'.5 They accuse
the writer's party of teaching that the Son had no origin (apX7i),and they
hold that the Son was given a beginning (&apXq)
of existence by the
Father. They also teach that 'there was a time when he (the Son) did not
exist'.6 They also teach that the Son was created for the sake of the rest
of creation, or for our sakes (11), and later once again the Arian slogans
'out of non-existence' (ei oux `ovrov)and 'there was a time when he did
not exist' are brought up (25). And the opponents of the writer's viewpoint who accuse his school of teaching that in the Incarnation Jesus
Christ was 'a mere man' (tX6cs avOpo7too)
(and nothing more) are probArians
because
ably
(33),
they alleged that the pro-Nicenes tended to
channel all the human experiences onto Christ's human nature without
properly involving the Godhead in redemption. These Arian sentiments
do not betray any great knowledge of Arianism and suggest a relatively
early period of the Controversy, before about the year 360, by which
time almost all Arians had ceased to use the term 'out of non-existence'
and were, in the Greek-speaking world at any rate, beginning to deploy
a more rigorously argued and more radical form of Trinitarian doctrine.
The greater part of Orat. IV is in fact devoted to an attack on a quite
different form of heresy from Arianism, one which seems to occupy the
writer's mind more fully, and one with which he is better acquainted
than he is with Arianism. This heresy is the doctrine of Marcellus of An-

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Mon, 27 May 2013 05:26:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE FOURTH ORATIO CONTRA ARIANOS

259

cyra or of his school. The writer never gives a name, except the very
general and uninformative one of 'Sabellians' to this school of thought,
always refers to its exponents in the plural, and never once mentions the
name of Marcellus. But the signs of Marcellus' teaching are unmistakable.7
The people attacked by the author of Orat. IV under this category
teach that 'the Son is only a name and that the Son of God is without
ousia and hypostasis of his own' (avoujatov8 xocaavuto6araov), and do not
believe at all in the distinct existence of the Son (8). It is probably this
party which accuses the author's school of being ditheists (10). These
people teach that the Son was not created, but 'put forth' (npopaXrtlat):
God was at one period silent and inactive, but when he uttered the Word
(Logos) he had power (11). The Son, they teach, 'was begotten for our
sakes and after our business retraces his steps so that he is what he
was'.8 The author of Orat. IV compares this doctrine to Stoicism, in its
xa
atcaxuv6vaOa).
concepts of God 'retracting and extending' (aTXX?eOat
The objects of his polemic apparently teach that the Monad extends
itself into a Trinity by the Incarnation,9 and a little earlier in the same
passage the author asks 'What is the power (ivipyEta) of this extension?'.
We are reminded of Marcellus' doctrine that the Logos worked with a
in order to bring about creaparticular 'active energy' (8paxatx vivp,pytta)
tion, revelation and redemption. The author also accuses some of this
erring school of thought of teaching that the Logos is different from the
Son, and that the Logos came first, and then the Son: 'Some say that
the human nature (av0pooov)which the Saviour assumed was the Son
himself, others that both together, the human nature and the Logos,
became the Son at the point when they were united'; another group
teaches that the Logos became the Son at the Incarnation (15).10 The
same people hold that some texts in the Gospel of John were intended
to be spoken, not by the Son but by the Logos. When their critics bring
up the institution of baptism, and ask why the Logos is apparently left
out of this sacrament, they reply 'In the name of the Father the Logos
is included'.1" This is followed by another radical statement from this
point of view: 'The human nature is not the Son, nor both [Logos and
human nature], but the Logos was in the beginning simply Logos, but
when he became man then he was called Son; for before the Incarnation
(ktcpaveLta)there was no Son but only Logos; and just as the Logos
became flesh, not having been flesh previously, so the Logos became
Son, not having previously been Son' (22). This doctrine demands in

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Mon, 27 May 2013 05:26:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

260

R. P. C. HANSON

consistency that all texts apparently speaking of the pre-existent Son in

the Old Testament must be explained away. The author of Orat. IV lists
some of them: Ps 2:7; 9 Heading; 45 (44) Heading; Isa 5:1; Ps 110
(109):3; Prov 8:25; Dan 3:25. The reply of this group is 'They are there,
but must be taken as predictions'.'2 In particular they insist that the line
ex yarTpo6 ipo iooa6opu Eyevv7caae ('In the belly before the morning star
did I beget thee', Ps 110 (109):3 LXX), is most improper as a reference
to the pre-aeonian production of the Son, and must refer to the birth
of Jesus Christ from the Blessed Virgin Mary (27). Finally, the author
assails the doctrine that the Son eventually will return to what he was
originally before the economy of salvation.3
Every one of these points quoted from the 'Sabellians' attacked by
the author of Orat. IV can be parallelled from the fragments of
Marcellus' work which have been preserved. The fact that the author
always refers to his opponents in the plural number and that he occasionally shows that small variations exist among them suggests that he
has in view the disciples of Marcellus rather than Marcellus himself. If,
as seems probable, Marcellus presided as bishop of Ancyra over the
Council of Ancyra in 314, he cannot have been born later than 284 and
very probably was born a good deal earlier than that, for there were very
few thirty-year old bishops in the fourth century. Eusebius of Caesarea
(Ecc. Theol. 2) and Athanasius (Hist. Arian. 6) say that he was already
an old man when he was condemned and deposed, in the year 336. By
the decade 350-360 he must have been at least in his seventies and
perhaps in his eighties. The Marcellans who addressed the Legatio ad
Eugenium in 371 to Athanasius mention him as alive, but do not bring
a message from him. He died in 374 at an immense age (Panarion 72.1
(255)). The doctrines branded as 'Sabellian' by the author of Orat. IV,
though clearly emanating from Marcellus, seem to take no account of
the concessions or alterations which he had made in his doctrine by the
time that he wrote the Letter to Julius in 341. All this points to the conclusion that the heresy envisaged in Orat. IV was not precisely that of
Marcellus (who may have been non compos mentis when it was written)
but that of his disciples.
To this list of undoubtedly Marcellan doctrines attacked by the
author of Orat. IV we can add a number of doctrines which he also attributes to his opponents; they are doctrines which we do not know to
be Marcellan but which well might be. One of these is the idea that the
Logos and Sophia (Wisdom) are qualities (otoL6-rTIS)in God, or that

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Mon, 27 May 2013 05:26:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE FOURTH ORATIO CONTRA ARIANOS

261

and Logos-in-himself (ati60Xoyoo).

God is Wisdom-in-himself (roa6tocpqa)
This results, says the author, in concluding that all such entities were
only 'aspects (of God) and mere words'.14 Later the author apparently
quotes from his opponents: 'Nothing is said about the Son in the Old
(Testament) but he is spoken of only in the New' (23). We have no
evidence that this was actually said in so many words by Marcellus, but
it is entirely consistent with his theology. These 'Sabellians', the writer
of Orat. IV says a little later, declare that the Father and the Son are
one in substance (hypostasis), but two in name (o6v6oAxt,25). This is
precisely what Eusebius of Caesarea accused Marcellus of really believing,15 though he does not say that Marcellus actually wrote it. And in
the same chapter of Orat. IV (25) the 'Sabellians' are accused of invoking I Cor. 12:4 (differences of charismata but the same Spirit) as an
analogy for the Trinity: 'Just so is the Father the same, but is extended
into Son and Spirit'.16 It is perfectly possible that these doctrines were
first produced by Marcellus in parts of his works which have not been
preserved for us, but on the whole it is better to assume that most of
them come from his disciples rather than from the master himself.
When we turn from the Marcellan doctrines attacked by the author
of Orat. IVto the doctrine which he himself professes, we find first that
he believes firmly that God is only one hypostasis and that for him (as
for the Creed of Nicaea in 325) ousia and hypostasis are synonymous
(10, 11). He does not use the term ousia much, but prefers the expression hypostasis: 'As there is one origin (&pX/)and consequently one
God; so the substance which really and truly and ontologically exists
and the being is one'.17 He uses the term 'consubstantial' (homoousios)
of the relation of the Father and the Son twice (9, 12) without apparently feeling any obligation to explain or defend it. He begins his
treatise by attempting to define the relation of the Father and the Son
(1):
'Sincethe Son is (Son)of one God, the Logos mustbe referredto him from
whomhe derives;so thatthe Fatherand the Son aretwo, but an undivided
of Godhead.Thus theremight be said to
and unseparatedunity (MovaBx)
be one origin(&px6)
of Godhead,not two origins;consequentlyit is literally
a Monarchy.The Son-Logosis by naturefrom that same origin, he is not
like anotherorigin existingin self-sufficiency,nor has he come into existence independentlyof that (origin), so that he avoids a dyarchy or
polyarchy arising from diversity, but he is the proper ('ilos) Son of the one

origin, the properWisdom,the properLogos, derivingexistencefrom it.'

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Mon, 27 May 2013 05:26:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

262

R. P. C. HANSON

But the author is anxious to avoid the possible Sabellian conclusions to

be drawn from this (1):
'Just as thereis not another(power)so that thereare not two origins, so
the Logos from the one origin is not dissolvednor simply a significant
sound, but substantial (oUCaiLcSg)Logos and substantial Wisdom, which

reallyis the Son. For if he werenot substantial,it wouldbe God speaking

into empty air and possessingno more solid reality(a~eLa)than human
words. But since (God) is not human,his Logos wouldnot be constituted
as humanimperfectionis. For just as the originis one substance(ousia),
so its Logos and Wisdom are one, substantial (oucaLnsYg)
and real (6pEaCTc6).

For as he is God from God and Wisdomfrom the Wise, and Logos from
the Rational,and Son from Father;so he is real from realityand substantial and essentialfrom substanceand existingfrom the existent'.18
The writer appears to be struggling to retain the vocabulary of the creed
of 325 while avoiding Sabellianism, but is obviously deficient in adequate terms to express his thought.
He returns more than once to the statement that Father and Son are
two, but also one, because of the identity of their ousia (e.g. 2). The Son
is from God himself, but distinct from him; but we must not postulate
two natures and two substances (8tcpuJ
ztvoca6v, Buaba ouaiao).It is best
to call him 'progeny' (y?vvl,Ja), on the analogy of light coming from
light (2), or of the light (a&au6yaoxa)
given by a fire in relation to the fire
itself (10). We must neither divide God into two nor say that the Father
is identical with the Son: 'If the two are one, then necessarily there are
two, but they are one in Godhead and the Son is in the Father con- 6o too6atov),and the Logos is from the Father
substantially (xat&a
so
there
are
himself;
two, because there is a Father and a Son (who is
the Logos) but one because there is one God (9). And he can speak of
'the inseparable conjunction' (auvacprtav
of the Father
xacca Oa&Xcptcnov)
and the Son (17).
He consistently maintains the kind of doctrine of the Incarnation
favoured by Athanasius: the Son-Logos assumed a body, and united
himself with it, so that the being (6r7ci6aatv) of God the Logos was not
separated from it (35), but the body endured all the human experiences
which left the Godhead of the Son untouched (6, 7, 18, 20, 23). He
argues strongly that Marcellus is quite wrong in seeing all texts in the
Old Testament which apparently refer to the pre-existent Son as predictions of the incarnate Son. He takes Proverbs 8:25-27 as examples of
this perverse exposition, and Ps 110 (109):3, but, significantly, never
refers to the capital text which Marcellus had particularly fastened

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Mon, 27 May 2013 05:26:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE FOURTH ORATIO CONTRA ARIANOS

263

upon, Prov. 8:22 (23, 24, 27, 28, 34). The reason for this is almost certainly that Athanasius had adopted Marcellus' interpretation of Prov.
8:22, but not of any of the other controverted texts.'9 The writer of
Orat. IV argues that the Holy Spirit also is spoken of as distinct from
the Father in the Old Testament (29). In his last chapter he speaks of
'the union with the human nature, by means of which it was possible
to men for the invisible world to be recognised through the visible', used
the term u7`apits,not of the distinct existence of the Son from the Father
but of the existence of Christ in the flesh, and says 'Christ therefore is
the God-man from Mary'.20The treatise ends less abruptly than its beginning (which plunges directly into theological argument) with an
ascription of glory to God.
All this evidence enables us to date this work within fairly close limits.
It is much concerned to defend the doctrine of the Nicene creed of 325,
and is acquainted with the kind of doctrine propounded by Athanasius
in his three Orations against the Arians. The fact that it uses the term
'the party of Eusebius' (o itepi EuaEOtov)
does not necessarily demand a
date during the lifetime of Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia and later of
Constantinople, who certainly is the bishop intended here and who died
in 341. The term was used long after his death. Athanasius uses it in De
Decretis 13.2, though that work must have been written in 356 or 357.
Orat. IV on the other hand shows no acquaintance at all with the decisions of the Council of Alexandria of 362 which pronounced upon the
significance of and distinction between ousia and hypostasis. It is
unaware of the development of the Neo-Arianism of Aetius and
Eunomius. It shows no special concern for upholding the divinity of the
Holy Spirit. It cannot possibly be as early as 339, by which time
Athanasius had barely begun to develop his theology in published
works. It can hardly be as late as 360, by which time both the menace
of Neo-Arianism and the subject of the status of the Holy Spirit were
beginning to take a prominent part in theological debate. If we place it
some time after the year 350 but before 360 we have good evidence on
our side.
The provenance both theological and geographical of the work also
presents no great problem. There was one group of people during this
period who were Greek-speaking Easterners, who were stout champions
of the formula of 325 and opponents of Arianism, who might be expected to be friendly towards Athanasius and capable of reproducing
some of his thought while not wholly absorbing it. These were the con-

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Mon, 27 May 2013 05:26:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

264

R. P. C. HANSON

tinuing Eustathians of Antioch, that is to say those who adopted the

views of Eustathius, who had been bishop of Antioch from 325 to 330
or 331, when he was deposed for heresy, but whose disciples kept his
tradition of pro-Nicene theology alive in Antioch for a very long time
after his deposition and his death. Eustathius had attended the council
of Antioch of 325 which condemned Eusebius of Caesarea, had been a
strong opponent of Arianism at Nicaea in the same year, perhaps a
more extreme opponent even than Alexander of Alexandria, was an
upholder of the doctrine of one hypostasis and one only in the
Godhead, distinguished carefully between the Son-Logos who assumed
human nature at the Incarnation and the body which endured all the
human experiences without affecting the divinity of the Logos, and (it
may be noted) referred Prov. 8:22 to the human body of Jesus Christ.21
If there was a continuing sect deriving from Paul of Samosata, it would
be found in Antioch, and would draw criticism from Eustathians (see
Orat. IV, 30-36). Orat. IV does not precisely reproduce every known
point of Eustathius' theology, but is quite consistent with what we know
of him, if we assume that his disciples, having learnt something from
Athanasius, are writing about twenty years after his death (which probably took place before 337). This school produced both Diodore and
Flavian, notable defenders of the Nicene cause in different circumstances, and Paulinus who was made a bishop for the sect in 362
by Lucifer of Calaris. Later, perhaps in the 370s, the followers of
Paulinus probably defended and finally absorbed the remains of
Marcellus' party, when that party had abjured Marcellus' most obvious
theological liabilities. But by about 350 the doctrines of Marcellus,
propagated and perhaps a little developed by his disciples, must have
seemed a dangerous phenomenon to the continuing Eustathians. The
obvious weakness of the creed of 325, which they were pledged to defend, was the opening it gave to a Sabellian interpretation. This was its
great defect in the eyes of people like the two Eusebii and their
theological successors. The theology of Marcellus, who had readily
subscribed to the creed of 325 and had himself been a champion of the
doctrine of one hypostasis, seemed to make this danger all the more
pressing. His doctrine, ingenious though it was in some ways, was almost indistinguishable from Sabellianism, and it was no doubt for this
heresy that he had been deposed. The Eustathians did not want to be
tarred with his brush. So they produced this useful little treatise,
designed to distinguish their doctrine from the kind of Arianism current

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Mon, 27 May 2013 05:26:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE FOURTH ORATIO CONTRA ARIANOS

265

in Antioch in the mid-fourth century, but much more to make it clear,

without actually mentioning Marcellus' name, that they were not
Marcellans.22It is not surprising that it was later attached to the works
of Athanasius.
The evidence of this work, then, points to the existence in the middle
years of the fourth century of quite a strong body of Marcellan opinion,
strong enough not only to give those Eastern bishops who were so inclined an impression that the Western bishops when they supported
Marcellus were all tainted with the heresy of Sabellianism, but also to
cause alarm among people in the East who supported the pro-Nicene
cause and were admirers of Athanasius. The condemnations of
Marcellus' doctrines which echo from almost all the creeds produced so
prolifically between 341 and 357 were not simply put in for propaganda
purposes. Three of the four creeds of Antioch 341, the statement of the
Eastern bishops after the abortive meeting at Serdica in 343, the
Macrostich of 345 and the first Sirmian Creed of 351 all contain such
condemnations, the last most emphatically of all.23 During these years
Marcellanism was a force to be reckoned with, as it was not by the time
it came to be condemned in the Creed of Constantinople of 381.
Orat. IV also gives us an interesting glimpse of what might be called
the middle period of the history of the continuing Eustathians, between
the time when Eustathius himself was bishop of Antioch and the time
when, under Paulinus, they were recognised as the Catholic party in Antioch by the great Athanasius and staked their claim to orthodoxy
against the much larger party which followed Meletius. During this middle period they were not without theological skill, but like their great exemplar Athanasius, had not developed a vocabulary quite sufficient to
cope with the difficulties with which they were confronted.

NOTES

' See A.
Stilcken, Athanasiana, T.U. IV, 4 (1899), 50-58, and (for Severus) J. Lebon,
in Revue d'Histoire Ec'S. Athanase a-t-il employ6 l'expression 6 xuptaxoc av0Opwoco?'
clesiastique 31 (1935), 324-329. Quasten, Patrology III, 28, refers to an article by A.
Gaudel on the subject, but the reference given is wrong and I have been unable to trace
this article.
2
2. My quotations
eiaTt 6ucEt,
iLtoScucpXcv X6YOo
iEv itOL ulioSTS oua'iO T5OU
auOTou,
7CacpO6
are from the text printed by W. Bright in The Oration of St. Athanasius against the Arians
(Oxford 1873).
'
v
6oV Xoyov, 4.
xatroa wpuatv
rs i8iota outiaocS iXEI vvir\[a

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Mon, 27 May 2013 05:26:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

266
4

R. P. C. HANSON

7&I0?T?pa ar o?X?Ta1 sTap'

iaavla%9,

ol

4il-tv,

xao T(A) tatpi

avap?pel,

7cp?aEa3?)v

U6Cp qIjiCv,

iv' Ev aurc)

6.

:epl EurEpltovoi 'ApetoFXavi-tt, 8.

v6
7nV7OTE OTEOX fv,

8.

The remains of Marcellus are to be found gathered together and edited at the end of
the Klostermann's edition of the Adversus Marcellum and Ecclesiastical History of
Eusebius of Caesarea in the GCS series (rev. G. C. Hansen, 1972). I do not here enter the
interesting and much debated subject of whether other works which are in our hands can
or cannot be attributed to Marcellus. The Letter to Julius of Rome of Marcellus is certainly authentic, and is to be found edited in Holl's GCS edition of Epiphanius' Panarion,
72.2.1-3, 5.
8 At'
''va r Sa7Erp'v, 12.
xal ?to' ilt
4FtO YE?E'vv7Tarxt,
a&vaTpxE?rpXt,
o9
xcpav/al7ta6 xcaTlp xoalyeovwS aiap, EtTyeaucxS, Mov&a cv, Ev TzOavOppWX?7rXaTrvOr'xai
TO?rptaOV,?VE 0 T?
E'cTaiE xai
'yt avUTOi
xaTOi,
?7XaTUV9O,

Mova< ia-ocTaxOaC'ape
TraXacXOLICOV

ov6olwatt6vov pta&c
(14).
10 Cf the
argument (of the author's opponents) E't dv ouvTOvav0pwxov 'ovcp6pCeav6 Xo6yo
u6ov TO 0?oU TOCV
xati iT TOVXo6ov ui6v ... (20).
caUTv Eiva Xeyouatv tOv
IOVO'Y?Vn
" 21; the statement that Son is the combination of Logos and human nature is repeated
here.
2 xetrat [dv, =po?pT:,tX OE iaT,
?'
24.
&vo
SJypatv, 25.
vacXpouvToS a6uTou TO6v
:oaripa,
14
xat' EitvoLav xaci a7tXca X?y6ojt?va,2.

E5

Ecc. Theol. III, 4, 'that there are three names to be found in one hypostasis.'
xai 6o riaTp 6 aTosrg dIVieTlt, XlaTUV?eTat
Oi EtiuO6vxat 7Cveu4a.
OUTWo
:C O6VTr
xxal
o6s7Laxod 6iCTa:OtS idaiC:tv(1) - a most emphatic
7 OUT;r TX
O
aO6v05T
xai aXo
statement.
o.
i u66oeo
8OUT"s5

V
aTxot xat i o6uoaCou6o4Sj xaiit ?vo6ULO

&Xv.
OVTO(

See Or. contra Arianos II passim and De Decretis 13.2.3; it is a most inconsistent piece
of interpretation, but it suited Athanasius' theology.
20
36.
XptLT6Souv 6 ix MapacStOeog
avOpco7oS,
21
See M. Spanneut, Recherches sur les Ecrits d'Eustache d'Antioche (Lille 1948).
22
The idea, which has been suggested, that this work has anything to do with Apollinaris
of Laodicea seems to me absurd. Not a single recognisably Apollinarian idea can be found
in it, and other internal evidence rules out the possibility of placing it as late as his day.
23
But not the Second ('Dedication') Creed of Antioch in 341, which was, I believe,
reproducing an earlier formula drawn up before Marcellus had appeared to darken
counsel, and not the 2nd Sirmian Creed ('The Blasphemy') of 357 which was much preoccupied with a resounding statement of Arianism pur sang. The strong language of the 1st
Sirmian Creed is probably accounted for by the existence in Sirmium of Photinus,
Marcellus' disciple, backed by considerable popular support.
'9

24 Styal Road, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 4AG

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Mon, 27 May 2013 05:26:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions